G. True Nelson: Former Deputy Sheriff, Military Officer, FBI Special Agent, and Security Consultant / Private Investigator. He currently resides in the Portland, Oregon Metro area. He is a writer on crime and judicial process; as well as discussing his personal observations on American culture and social mores.

RETURN

Monday, February 24, 2014

I’ve been thinking about some of the imponderables
associated with Kyron Horman’s disappearance.
Agreed, there are many; but here are a few that have been on my
mind. Some of you will have others.

·Has the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office now relegated
the Kyron disappearance to the cold case files?They can’t possibly have one or more deputies currently assigned to this
investigation.Leads must have long
since dried-up.They just don’t seem to discuss
it anymore.Furthermore, what about some
of their past edge-of-the-seat comments?‘We’ll have more by August.’Of
course, they didn’t mention what year they were talking about.

·Why did Desiree give up her civil suit?It was her one best chance to keep the
investigation before the public, as well as develop new information.Was it about money?If so, why didn’t she ask for help?There are attorneys and private investigators
who would have probably taken the case pro bono, or on an expense basis
only.But, she seemed to let the
opportunity pass without any sort of tangible reason.I know she seemed to blame it on the
Sheriff’s Office and the Prosecutor – and that they wouldn’t turn over their
investigative results.But, let’s be
real.Everyone familiar with the system
knew that would be a very long shot.Also, and I’ve discussed this several times, why didn’t she name the
school district in the suit?

·What about the child custody case currently
before the court – Terri Horman and Kaine Horman?Under the circumstances, any judge would have
to be unhinged to give unsupervised custody to Terri.That’s just not going to happen.Even a supervised visit by the estranged
mother, Terri, would be disturbing to the child.Don’t you think?

·Did Terri fail one or two polygraph tests, or
did she not?Do we know that for a fact?And, if so, what part of the polygraph test
was she presumed to be deceptive?

·Why has Terri Horman refused to consistently cooperate
with the inquiry into the whereabouts of Kyron?Why has she surrounded herself with attorneys and apparently invoked the
Fifth Amendment, on more than one occasion, as a shield?I know she / they claim it is because of the
alleged ‘murder for hire’ situation.I
say that is nonsense.Regarding that
particular issue, the SO and prosecutors don’t seem to have any prosecutable
case – little more than he said – she said.No, the MfH claim is a ruse by her attorneys to protect her from talking
about the disappearance of Kyron.If the
alleged MfH plot is the sticking point, why doesn’t the prosecutor give her
immunity from that charge in exchange for her complete cooperation in the
disappearance of Kyron?No attorneys, no
Fifth Amendment, just the complete cooperation of a normally concerned parent
of a missing child.Not a lot to ask or
expect.Is it?

·Who is paying for all of Terri’s attorneys?Her parents?If so, they must be pretty well-set.And, why would they be willing to sink their life-savings into a
situation like this?Are her attorneys
working pro bono or at a reduced rate?I
doubt it.Steve Houze is one of the most
expensive attorneys in the Portland area; and much of his money he wants
upfront.Why does Terri require a
celebrity attorney when other very qualified, less expensive attorneys are
available?

·Is the Sheriff’s Office inquiry now prefaced on
the recovery of a body?And, if so, how
would that change anything?The only
difference is that there is a factual crime, at that point, but there is not,
probably, any additional evidence – at least not at this late date. Depending upon where, when, and the condition of the body - very little evidence will remain.

·What’s with the school?How did they manage to skate free of any
involvement in Kyron’s disappearance?There was no negligence on their part?None?

·If they can’t identify a suspect – they being
the SO or prosecutors – who have they eliminated?They don’t have to necessarily name names,
but it seems they could give periodic updates – rather than the vague generalities
the public is expected to swallow – unchallenged.

·What were the details with the cell phone pings
emanating, reportedly, on Sauvie Island and attributable to Terri Horman’s cell
phone.Mere rumor or fact?

·Why does the whole issue with David Durham, his shooting of a police officer on the coast, and his subsequent disappearance,
without a trace, still hang there like a conspiratorial misfire?What about his connection to Sauvie
Island?What about Terri’s?Was there any indication that Terri Horman
knew him?Did they have common friends
or associates?Common habits or
pursuits?Illegal drugs?Why does ‘disappearing without a trace’ seem
like a possible common denominator?After all, someone, like Kyron or David, disappearing into ‘nothingness’
is rather rare.

·How long will Terri Horman endure her
self-imposed exile to Roseburg?When
will attorneys Houze et al lose interest?When will Terri’s financial backing be exhausted?Why does she not leave the State and start a
new life elsewhere?Have the prosecutors
blocked her from doing that?Does she
expect to be vindicated?Then what?

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

On February 14th, Dave Dahl appeared in
Washington County Circuit Court to enter a plea in the melee of November 14th,
last year. During the November dust-up,
he rammed Sheriff’s Office vehicles with his Cadillac Escalade, fought with
deputies (injuring same), was high on intoxicants and was generally a bad boy.

I’m not making light of this. But, the judge seemed to think the incident was
rather minor, subsequently releasing Dahl on a mere $20,000 bail of which Dahl
put up $2000 to a bail bondsman. This
was the designated bail given to a previously convicted felon and currently a
rather well-heeled man.

Please refer to my posts of November 16th, 17th,
and 21st for background.
Reading the earlier posts, it will be clear to all that I was not particularly sympathetic with Mr. Dahl. I referred to
the $20,000 bail, ordered by the judge, as mere ‘chump change.’

Well, to the point:

Dahl appeared in court on Friday, February 14th, with his
attorney Steve Houze, for the preliminary hearing involving the aforementioned
crimes. At that time, prosecutors nailed
Dahl with 14 additional counts (nine felonies and five misdemeanors). Crimes included multiple counts of ‘assault
with a dangerous weapon’ – presumably the Cadillac Escalade. Yes, a vehicle can be considered a ‘dangerous
weapon.’ Dahl was handcuffed and taken
to jail. Bail, this time, was set at $520,000. Don’t worry, he has posted the bail and is
now out again.

I know it is becoming increasingly clear that I have little
regard for many attorneys, particularly those in the criminal justice system. Why?
The whole system is often little more than an inside joke – perpetuated by
defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges.
They play their legal games with an alarmingly straight face.

So, what’s my gripe?
After being kind of down on Mr. Dahl, I hate to see this kind of ‘pile-on’
justice or whatever you want to call it.
Washington County prosecutors took three months to decide what to charge
Dahl with. Three months, can you imagine? In other words, the prosecutors spent the
last three months reading their code books before they decided on just what
crimes Dahl had committed; and finally, exhausted by their professional efforts, pared the
charges down to 14 additional.

'Whoa,' they might say. We had to wait for the
sheriff deputies’ reports. Well, they
should have had them within a day or two. 'But,' they might counter, 'the deputies were injured.' OK, how about someone conducting an inquiry,
interviewing the deputies, and presenting prosecutors with the facts? After all isn’t "justice delayed, justice
denied?"

So, what’s the game here?
Well, prosecutors pour through the elements of every conceivable crime
associated with a given situation. After
they have drawn up the list, they have no half-baked illusion that they will receive
a conviction or a guilty plea on each charge.
Of course they won’t. It’s just
how you play the game. Houze will
negotiate and 'deal-down.' Some concessions on charges will be made by the prosecution in exchange for a guilty plea on others. Dahl will go to jail for a short period of time - plus a sizable fine. Houze and prosecutors will go to lunch. Game over.

Dwayne Ferguson, age 52, licensed to carry a concealed
weapon in the state of New York, was arrested and charged with two felonies
when he ‘accidentally’ carried a handgun into an elementary school where he was
mentoring young children. Someone,
anonymously, reported to the police that an unknown individual had brought a
gun into the school. (Sounds to me like Dwayne was set-up.) The school was
locked down, countless police and a SWAT team responded, and after some time,
reportedly hours, the police discovered the person ‘packing’ was Ferguson.

Ferguson, a prominent figure in the community, and a
proponent of strict gun laws for the state of New York – much like the ones for which he was arrested –
was, during the extended search and lockdown, allegedly protecting children
while police searched the school. He was
apparently not aware that the gun-toting individual the police were looking for
was, in fact, he.

This is both amusing and troubling. Amusing from the point of view that a strong
gun control activist could be arrested for violation of laws that he publicly
supported, and that his defense is that he was unaware that he was carrying a
gun on his person. On the other hand, troubling
in the sense that violating some of the new gun control laws is extremely easy
to do. I’ll explain.

As a general rule, there are two elements to a crime –
particularly felonies: the mens rea or criminal intent and the actus reus or guilty act. Both of these elements are normally required
for the most serious crimes. In Ferguson’s
situation, if the facts are as reported, he has completed the guilty act (actus reus), but he has not shown or demonstrated
criminal intent (mens rea). Now there are exceptions.

Many violations of law, such as traffic violations, do not
require criminal intent – as we all know.
Nonetheless, most felonies do require intent. And, this started me thinking about possible
exceptions to that standard. Negligent homicide
might be one exception. It is based on the
premise that an act of violence has been committed wherein an ‘average’ citizen
should be aware that his or her actions were dangerous and likely to cause
harm (an element of intent).

This is, I suppose, the long way around to address the question
as to whether or not Ferguson, clueless as he may very well have been, should
be charged with a felony. A fine
perhaps, but a felony? I don’t think so.

A personal observation: I ‘carried’ for quite a few years while in law
enforcement. I don’t think there was a
moment when I was not fully aware that there was a gun strapped to my waist. How someone could forget they were carrying a
gun and walk into an elementary school, particularly after supporting and
advocating for that very same law against bringing guns into schools, is hard
for me to believe. More likely, in my
opinion, Ferguson decided that the law didn’t necessarily apply to him.

Now to the troubling aspect.
Many laws have been recently enacted making it a felony to possess a gun
on your person within 1000 feet of a school.
Laws similar to the one that ensnared Ferguson. Practically speaking, this makes it difficult
to navigate any town or city without violating the law if you are a shooting hobbyist
or hunter. Those licensed to carry ‘concealed’
are not exempted from these restrictive laws.
Ignorance is no excuse. So, if
your car happens to break down near a school, and you have a concealed permit,
the police officer’s first question will be, ‘do you have a gun with you?’ Why would they ask that? Because when they run your license plate,
they are informed that the registered owner of the vehicle has a gun permit. So, what do you do? Well, you could lie. God help you if the police discover you were lying. Or, you could say, ‘yes, I have a permit and
the gun is in the glove box.’ It’s nice
that you are honest, and very commendable I might add; but, nonetheless, you
will be on your way to jail in handcuffs - possibly charged with a felony.

The laws vary from state to state, so do your research. Oh, I should say, good luck with that. The gun laws, you will find, are complicated,
redundant and deceptive – not always as they might first appear. Remember that state gun laws are often enacted
by marginally employed lawyers who have the time to run for state office,
have never owned a gun and can’t understand why anyone would want to own a gun,
and who take considerable joy in creating laws that are so unintelligible that
a lawyer is required to interpret.

Saturday, February 8, 2014

Just a note to all my fans – both of them, ha ha. I’ve been well and am enjoying life with the
boss. The boss often wonders out loud
what my life was like before I ended up in the joint, aka dog control facility. It is a subject I don’t really care to
discuss. Anyway, I’m happy now. I must say that where I was born, Los
Angeles, it is a tad warmer than Portland.

It’s been very cold here in Portland. Life has been pretty routine, but that’s the
way I like it. Usually, we are up at
6AM, breakfast is served, and then I’m off for my morning
constitutional. Boy, that early morning
walk was a real trial today. I’ve
attached some photographs. We have
received 6 to 8 inches of snow. And, we’ve
had sub-freezing temperatures for the last few days.

Perhaps this is a little indiscreet, but in 8 inches of snow
it’s very hard to do your business – especially when you are as short as I
am. But, I make do. That aside, it’s a blast running and rolling
in the snow.

The attached pictures are of me and the boss returning from
my morning walk and a picture of me warming my buns by the fireplace.

Monday, February 3, 2014

The years since I was a FBI Agent have now morphed into
decades. I did not retire from the
Bureau; but went on to other law enforcement related and investigative
pursuits. Nonetheless, I’ve followed the
evolution of the FBI from outside the Bureau through friends and acquaintances.

The Bureau and the typical Agent are very different now than
during the 70’s. For some of us old
timers, the changes were not for the better.
For current Agents, I’m sure, they feel we were dinosaurs – and good
riddance. Some say current Agents are
more intelligent. I’m not so sure. How does one quantify intelligence? I worked with Agents who were very
intelligent and highly educated.

Admittedly, modern Agents are often computer savvy. The older guys, on the other hand, might
describe the new guys as nerds.

Older Agents were all required to know how to shoot. The shooting requirement for present day FBI
Agents has been so diluted that many of the older guys could successfully shoot
the new course blindfolded. Current
Agents often spend their day transfixed by a computer screen. Older Agents were required to get out of the
office and talk to people. Older Agents
were often what might be considered generalists, or at least potential
generalists. Present Agents are more
specialized. And, maybe this is how it
should be. I suppose the new guys and
gals are a product of their times.

New Agents are paid much better than in the old days. Perhaps, because of that, they hire and hopefully
retain a better product. That said, many
of the older guys considered their position as a FBI Agent to be a ‘calling,’
and pay be damned. On a personal note, I
did not leave the Bureau because of the pay or benefits. No, my decision to resign was more due to the hectic life
in a big city, and a yearning for something more like what I was used to. I took a big gamble leaving government employment;
but, ultimately, life has treated me well.

Another difference, perhaps, is that the modern day FBI has
a lot of money to throw around – offering million dollar rewards and lucrative
payments to informants.

Which brings me to Meezilini. It appears that an uncover Agent or operative for the FBI was offering
to engage Meezilini in some sort of music business. Of course, this was all a ruse to gain his
association and trust. The FBI never had
any intention of entering into any aspect of the music business. They just wanted to get someone close to the
target. The target, in this case, was
Meezilini.

Today’s FBI has Agents, and the operatives under Agents, who
do nothing other than informant development.
Meezilini was targeted, I imagine, because Portland’s FBI administrators
decided that the Mann Act was an appropriate priority for this area, and that
Meezilini was an important player. Subsequently, the assigned Agents had to make a plan of action as to how they
might get next to him.

Rap music was a
focal point. Therefore, it would seem
appropriate to assign a Black Agent as the principal case agent – even if that
required bringing that Agent in from another Field Office. As they say, ‘money talks.’ So, someone had to get next to Meezilini and
get him to accept money under a contrived pretext. It’s as simple as that. Once the money starts to flow, the FBI
expects something in return – namely information.

Finally, it must be said, that informant development may sound
exciting; but it can be a distasteful and a corrupting pursuit for someone in
law enforcement. It requires befriending
individuals that represent the darkest underbelly of humanity, as well as succesfully making those miscreants believe you are one with them.

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Informant development by FBI Agents has always been an
important part of the job. In my time,
part of your performance rating was based on how successfully you acquired ‘informants.’ This was both more difficult than you might
think, and easier than you might think.
Easier than you might think because an Agent could open a case on almost
anyone as a Potential Criminal Informant or PCI. The process involved an Agent developing
background on an individual over a period of weeks or months, and then,
usually, closing the case citing the PCI’s inability to furnish information of
value. Where does a FBI Agent find
PCIs? Almost anywhere. The supervisory pressure often made the Agent
very creative in developing ‘potentials.’ It might be someone simply living in a bad
section of town, or in a commune, or a college student who attended some
rally. I even knew of a First Office
Agent who opened a case on a person buried in a local cemetery. He did it as a joke – more or less. The Agent did a background on the name, and
then reported a few weeks later that the person had suddenly died. As far as the clueless supervisor knew, said
Agent was at least trying.

An actual CI or Criminal Informant was decidedly more
difficult to develop. In that situation,
the ‘source,’ who theoretically started as a PCI, had to furnish information of
value in at least two criminal cases. As
you might imagine, the cemetery was not going to help you out in that regard.

I developed a CI in my first office, which was rare for a
First Office Agent. I would gas-up my
Bureau car at the end of the day – and almost always stopped at the same gas
station. The station owner was a nice
guy and had free peanuts in a large jar for customers who were interested.
I would buy a Coke, eat some peanuts and chat with the owner when he
wasn’t pumping gas. One time, he told me
about a guy who stopped for gas the previous day. The owner was certain that the guy's Cadillac was
stolen, so he had jotted down the vehicle plate number. I ran it for him and sure enough the car had
been stolen. As we were talking, the
owner said, “And, I’ll be damned. There
he is now.” I went out and got in my
car, followed the suspect’s car out of the station and called for backup. The suspect was stopped. The car was stolen in a burglary of a car
dealership. And, the suspect had a
loaded gun under the front seat. The
local PD took him away.

Bingo! I went back to
the office. I opened a PCI case on the
station owner. The next day I reported
the station owner had assisted me in solving three crimes: auto theft, burglary, and a felon in
possession of a gun. Instantly, I had a
CI, plus a pat on the back.

Next, I’d like to give you my impressions of the modern day
FBI and their informant development tactics – as those tactics might apply to
Mr. Meezilini.

Three Laws for Effective Gun Control

Here are three potential laws that I would recommend for effective gun control:

1) Convicted felon in possession of a gun: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

2) Knowingly selling or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

3) Theft of a gun, during the commission of a felony: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole - sentence in addition to any time associated with the attendant felony.